Class Action Defense Blog

As Matter of First Impression, FDCPA Permits Consumers to Notify Debt Collectors of Dispute Within 30 Days of Receiving Debt Collectors’ Letter Necessitating Reversal of Summary Judgment in Favor of Defense in FDCPA Class Action Second Circuit Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative nationwide class action complaint against Healthcare Financial Services (HFS), a “debt collector” within the meaning of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that a debt collection letter he received from HFS violated the FDCPA by failing to advise debtors of their right to dispute the validity of the debt. Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85, 2008 WL 383060, *1 (2d Cir. 2008). The class action complaint did not allege that plaintiff suffered any actual loss, limiting recover to statutory damages and attorney fees. Id. Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action, or in alternative sought summary judgment, on the ground that the debt collection letter did not violate the FDCPA; the defense also sought attorney fees from plaintiff, arguing that he had filed the class action “in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment,” see 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). Id. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of HFS and awarded HFS attorney fees and costs, id. The Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.

The FDCPA provision at issue provides that a debtor has the right to dispute a debt and seek verification of the validity of the debt by notifying the debt collector of the right to dispute the debt. Jacobson, at *2. The Second Circuit recognized that it must view the issue from the perspective of the “least sophisticated consumer,” see id., at *3 (citing Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314, 1318 (2d Cir. 1993)), but observed also that “the objective test we apply [also] protects debt collectors from unreasonable constructions of their communications,” that the Second Circuit has “carefully preserved the concept of reasonableness,” and that “the FDCPA does not aid plaintiffs whose claims are based on ‘bizarre or idiosyncratic interpretations of collection notices.’” Id. (citations omitted). So viewed, the Circuit Court held that the letter sent by HFS clearly advised debtors of their right to dispute the validity of the alleged debt.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Jacobson v. Healthcare Financial: Second Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense In FDCPA Class Action And Vacates Award Of Attorney Fees And Costs Against Class Action Plaintiff" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Using Consolidated Individual and Class Action Lawsuits Alleging Various Violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Seventh Circuit Resolves Nine Issues of Recurring Concern Including Debt Collection Communications with Lawyers for Consumers

The Seventh Circuit consolidated for decision four class action and individual lawsuits brought under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) “that present nine questions…, several of which have engendered considerable controversy at the circuit level and even some circuit splits.” Evory v. RJM Acquisitions Funding LLC, ___ F.3d ___ [Slip Opn., at 3] (7th Cir. October 23, 2007). Two of the consolidated cases were filed as putative class action lawsuits, but the issues addressed by the Seventh Circuit frequently arise in FDCPA class action litigation. The nine questions are: (1) the FDCPA notice requirements apply if the consumer is represented by legal counsel; (2) whether the FDCPA prohibition against “harassing, deceptive, and unfair practices in debt collection” applies to communications with a debtor’s lawyer and, if so, (3) whether the applicable standard for determining if such a violation occurred is the same if made to a lawyer as if made to the debtor; (4) whether the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from including settlement offers in a debt collection letter and, if not per se unlawful, (5) whether it matters if the offer is made to a lawyer rather than directly to a debtor; (6) whether a safe harbor exists for debt collectors accused of violating § 1692e based on settlement offers and, if so, (7) the evidence required to establish that a settlement offer violates that statute; and finally, (8) “[w]hether the determination that a representation is or is not false, deceptive, or misleading under section 1692 is always to be treated as a matter of law,” and, if not, (9) whether the court may nonetheless dismiss a claim under § 1692e “on the ground that the challenged representation was, as a matter of law, not false or misleading.” Id., at 3-4.

The Seventh Circuit held as follows. First, that the notice requirements apply regardless of whether the debtor is represented by counsel because it would be “odd if the fact that a consumer was represented excused the debt collector from having to convey to the consumer the information to which the statute entitles him.” Evory, at 6. Second, that while lawyers are “less likely to be deceived,” the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from using “any unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt” and there is no reason to “immuniz[e] practices forbidden by the statute when they are directed against a consumer’s lawyer.” Id., at 7. However, the Circuit Court held that the standard generally applicable for determining violations of the FDCPA - viz., whether the representation would mislead an “unsophisticated consumer” - does not apply to communications with lawyers, id., at 7-8; rather, the Seventh Circuit held “that a representation by a debt collector that would be unlikely to deceive a competent lawyer, even if he is not a specialist in consumer debt law, should not be actionable,” id., at 9. But this is not true for statements that are false or misleading, because “[a] false claim of fact…may be as difficult for a lawyer to see through as a consumer.” Id., at 9. Representations that are false or misleading - that is, where the lawyer “might be unable to discover the falsity of the representation without an investigation that he might be unable, depending on his client’s resources, to undertake” - are actionable irrespective of whether they are made to the debtor or to the debtor’s counsel. Id., at 9-10.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Evory v. RJM Acquisitions: Seventh Circuit Consolidates Class Action And Individual Lawsuits To Resolve Nine Difficult FDCPA Questions With Direct Impact On FDCPA Class Actions" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Class Action Plaintiff Lawyer’s Collusion with Plaintiff’s Counsel in Separate Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Class Action Against Same Defendant is not Condoned but Remedy lies with Congress not with Disciplinary Bodies California Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against a debt collection agency and one of its employees alleging that letters sent to debtors violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California’s state law equivalent, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act). Guevarra v. Progressive Fin. Servs., Inc., 497 F.Supp.2d 1090, 1090-91 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The class action complaint originally sought “class-wide relief on behalf of all debtors who received the letter at issue here”; however, plaintiff’s counsel subsequently amended the class action allegations to seek relief solely on behalf of debtors of a single creditor. IKEA. Id., at 1091. Plaintiff’s counsel then asked the district court to certify the litigation as a class action, and admitted at oral argument that counsel was “coordinating with plaintiff’s counsel in a separate [class action] pending in the Central District of California concerning the same letter as the one at issue here.” Id. As the district court explained at page 1091, “Apparently, plaintiff’s counsel agreed with counsel in the [other class action] to divide up the class between the IDEA and non-IKEA creditors.” The district court refused to certify the litigation as a class action and issued an Order to Show Cause why plaintiff’s counsel should not be referred to the State Bar for disciplinary action. Id.

The district court denied the class certification motion “citing plaintiff's arbitrary distinction between IKEA and non-IKEA creditors and concluding that plaintiff's proposed definition is not ‘superior’ to other means available under FRCP 23(b)(3).” Guevarra, at 1091. The federal court explained at page 1091, “Because plaintiff's counsel appeared to have divided up the class in order to maximize attorney fees without significant benefit to their clients, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why the court should not refer this matter to the State Bar of California and the Northern District's Standing Committee on Professional Conduct” (citations omitted). The court also concluded that the case relied upon by plaintiff’s counsel, Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 109 F.3d 338 (7th Cir.1997), was in applicable because the Mace court merely refused to impose on counsel a duty to bring a class action “on behalf of the broadest possible class”; “Mace does not, however, condone post-suit collusion between counsel in separate actions in order to cut a class in two.” Id., at 1091.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Guevarra v. Progressive Financial: California Federal Court Holds Congress Must Address "Ethically Questionable" Conduct of Plaintiff's Counsel In Multiplying Class Action Litigation" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Federal Court Holds Least Sophisticated Debtor would be Misled by Language in Debt Collection Letter thus Entitling Plaintiff in FDCPA Class Action to Summary Judgment and Finds Fact Plaintiff was not Misled Irrelevant to its Decision or to Defense Motion to Decertify Class Action

Plaintiff filed a class action in California federal court against Arrow Financial Services alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and its state-law equivalent, California’s Rosenthal Act, in that debt collection letters sent by defendant failed to comply with the applicable laws. Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs. LLC, 489 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1143 (S.D. Cal. 2007). The class action complaint was premised on the following language in defendant’s “form collection letters”: “Upon receipt of the settlement amount and clearance of funds, and if we are reporting the account, the appropriate credit bureaus will be notified that this account has been settled.” Id. Plaintiff alleged this violated the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act because the debt underlying defendant’s collection effort had been charged off more than 7 years ago and “a credit bureau cannot report a debt charged off more than 7 years previously,” id. An unsophisticated consumer thus may be misled by the form letter into believing that “payment or nonpayment of the claimed debt may impact the consumer's credit reporting, when that is not true.” Id., at 1143-44. After the district court certified the lawsuit as a class action, defense and plaintiff attorneys filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and defense attorneys moved to decertify the class, id., at 1144. The district court denied both defense motions, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.

After summarizing the FDCPA and the “least sophisticated debtor” standard applied in the Ninth Circuit, Arrow, at 1146, a determination made by the court, not a jury, measured by an “objective standard,” id., and after setting forth the relevant section of the Rosenthal Act, id. (quoting Cal. Civil Code, § 1788.13(f)), the district court turned to the defense motion for summary judgment. Defense attorneys argued that the debt collection letters did not violate the FDCPA or the Rosenthal Act because the letters are not false or misleading – the letters did not “illegally threaten[] any action” or mislead or deceive anyone, and “Arrow does not have a policy to report debts such as plaintiff's debts to the credit bureaus and in no way seeks to use credit reporting as a means to illegally collect debts.” Id., at 1147. The defense also relied on plaintiff’s deposition testimony that (1) he knew he did not have to pay the debt and that Arrow would not report such a failure to credit bureaus, and (2) he was not confused by the letter he received from Arrow, id. The federal court noted that it had already found the letters to be misleading or deceptive because “without any explanation detailing what debts are likely to be reported or even if the subject debt is one that is reportable, ‘the least sophisticated debtor could likely believe his [or her] debt is reportable just because the letters indicate the credit bureaus will be notified’” and that even though the letters did not expressly threaten to contact credit bureaus they implied that “the status of the debt may have already been or may, at some later date, be submitted to the credit bureaus” and that such conduct “is actionable under the Act.” Id., at 1148 n.1.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases–Gonzales v. Arrow Financial: California Federal Court Holds Debt Collection Letter Violated FDCPA And California Rosenthal Act And Denies Defense Motion To Decertify Class Action" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Dismissal of Class Action Alleging Violations of Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) did not Warrant Notice to Absent Members of Putative Class because no Evidence of Reasonable Reliance on Prosecution of Class Action Ohio Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff/debtor filed a putative class action against attorneys for a creditor alleging that the law firm’s collection efforts violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Defense attorneys successfully moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims in her class action complaint on the ground that she lacked standing to prosecute claims that now belonged to the bankruptcy trustee, and the federal court rejected plaintiff’s effort to bar the bankruptcy trustee from settling with the defense. Thereafter, the bankruptcy trustee “acting in good faith on behalf of the estate's creditors, negotiated a settlement with Defendants”; however, the district court agreed with plaintiff/debtor that “notice of the involuntary dismissal should be given to the putative class members, because some risk existed that those class members would be prejudiced by the expiration of the statute of limitations later this year.” Griffith v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 241 F.R.D. 600, 601 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Plaintiff filed her proposed notices and requested that defendant be ordered to pay for the notice; defense attorneys moved the court to reconsider its order requiring notice to putative class members, id. The court granted the defense motion, holding that notice need not be provided to putative class members.

Preliminarily, the federal court found that the proposed notices prepared by plaintiff’s counsel were “clearly inadequate” and that they “simply invite contact with Plaintiff's counsel.” Griffith, at 601. The court further stated that it would not order defendant to pay the costs of the notice, noting that as a general rule in class actions the plaintiff is responsible for the costs associated with notices to the class, especially when the court has not yet ruled on the merits of any claim alleged in the class action complaint id.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Case-Griffith v. Javitch: Ohio Federal Court Holds Pre-Certification Notice To Putative Class Of Dismissal Of Class Action Not Required Because No Evidence Of Reliance Or Prejudice" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

District Court Concludes that Validation Notice in Debt Collection Letter was Presumptively Valid because it Tracked Section 1692g of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), but Concluded that Least Sophisticated Consumer could have been Confused by “Subject To” Language in Letter and so Denies Defense Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against debt collection law firm alleging that a debt collection letter sent in August 2005 violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Meselsohn v. Lerman, 485 F.Supp.2d 215, 216 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). Defense attorneys moved to dismiss the class action complaint for failure to state a claim on the ground that the letter was presumptively valid. Surprisingly, plaintiff admitted that the letter “properly informs the consumer of his rights to dispute the debt, request verification of the debt and request creditor information within thirty (30) days of the initial communication from the debt collector.” Id., at 217. The class action complaint was premised on the theory that the letter violated the FDCPA because the 30-day validation period required by Section 1692g is “improperly overshadowed by the demand for payment of the debt within the same thirty days.” Id. According to plaintiff, it was unclear that he had the right “to either pay the debt or request validation,” id. (italics added). Defense attorneys argued that dismissal of the class action was warranted because the letter “tracks the statutory language of the FDCPA and is presumptively valid,” and argued further that the demand for payment “is specifically made ‘subject to’ the thirty day notice provisions” and so the validation notice is not “overshadowed” by the payment demand. Id. Plaintiff countered that the letters should have included “transitional language explaining to the consumer that the demand for payment does not override the consumer's right to seek validation of the debt” and that it is deficient because it is not clear that the consumer may either pay the debt or dispute it. Id. The district court agreed with plaintiff.

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Meselsohn v. Lerman: New York Federal Court Denies Defense Motion To Dismiss Class Action Under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Holding Collection Letter Complied With Statute But Required Transitional Language" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

FDCPA Class Action Certified Over Defense Objection that Range of 100-500 Class Members does not Satisfy Numerosity and that Allegation that Debt Collection Letters Violate Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Presented Common Questions of Law and Fact Illinois Federal Court Holds

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Check Brokerage Corp. alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) based on debt collection letters sent by the company. Day v. Check Brokerage Corp., 240 F.R.D. 414, 415 (N.D. Ill. 2007). The class action alleged that defendant’s letters violate the FDCPA in that they are “false, deceptive, or misleading as determined by the unsophisticated consumer standard and therefore in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e), (e)(2)(A), (e)(5), and (e)(10).” Id., at 416. The class action complaint also alleged that defendant “used unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(f) and (f)(1)” and that the notice concerning a consumer's right to dispute a debt failed to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1692(g)(a), id. Plaintiff moved the court to certify the litigation as a class action; defense attorneys argued that class action treatment was inappropriate because neither numerosity nor commonality had been met. Id., at 415. The district court disagreed.

The class action complaint was premised upon four debt collection letters defendant sent to plaintiff concerning a $20 debt. Day, at 416. The first letter advised Day that his $20 check had not cleared, that he now owed $65 (which included a “return check charge” of $25 and a “bank charge to merchant” of $20), and that additional fees may be imposed if payment is not made promptly and it was in his "‘best interests to clear this check immediately,’ despite the notification at the end of the letter that Day had thirty days to dispute the validity of the debt.” Id. The second letter “suggest[ed] you give this matter your immediate attention" and quoted Illinois Commercial Code § 3-806 about liability for dishonored checks. Id. The third letter “demand[ed] the $65.40 and stat[ed], ‘WE MUST HAVE YOUR PAYMENT NOW!!’” The letter also warned plaintiff that he could be liable for additional amounts. Id. Finally, the fourth letter stated, "THIS CHECK REMAINS UNPAID! WE ARE, THEREFORE, GOING TO SHOW YOU HOW MUCH IT COULD COST SHOULD IT GO TO LITIGATION." This letter included reference to warrants for arrest and adverse credit reports, and ended, "Common sense would dictate that this check be paid at this point. THE AMOUNT DUE, INCLUDING THE CHECK AND SERVICE CHARGES TO THIS POINT, IS $65.40." Id.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-Day v. Check Brokerage: Illinois Federal Court Holds That Class Action Rule 23(a)(1) Numerosity Test Does Not Require Exact Number And Debt Collection Letters Presented Common Questions Of Fact And Law" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

FDCPA Class Action Claim Belonged to Bankruptcy Estate and Settlement of Individual Claim Appropriate because Trustee could not Prosecute Class Action Ohio Federal Court Holds

After a law firm filed an action to collect a debt from her, plaintiff filed a putative class action against the law firm alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Griffith v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLP, 358 B.R. 338, 340 (S.D. Ohio 2007). Shortly thereafter, plaintiff and her husband filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the federal court for the Southern District of Ohio, staying the underlying action, and plaintiff listed the class action as a contingent claim her creditor, Great Seneca Financial Corporation, but did not separately list her class action against the law firm. Id. The bankruptcy trustee determined that it was a no-asset case, and plaintiff and her husband received a bankruptcy discharge in October 2004; less than a month later, the underlying lawsuit was reopened. Id. The parties jointly requested a stay pending a decision by the federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a case concerning “several defenses to an FDCPA suit that are raised by [the law firm] here on essentially identical factual allegations,” id. (citing Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, 434 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2006). The underlying class action again became active in June 2006.

Defense attorneys moved for dismissal or summary judgment, arguing that the class action claim belonged to the bankruptcy trustee because it was not properly listed on the bankruptcy petition schedules; accordingly, the defense argued, plaintiff lacked standing to prosecute the class action. Griffith, at 340. Plaintiff countered that a “class action claim” had been listed on the petition, and advised the court that the bankruptcy trustee would be filing a formal abandonment of the claim so that her class action could proceed; instead, the trustee advised plaintiff’s lawyer that it would not be in the best interests of the bankruptcy estate to abandon the claim. Id. The court issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of standing, but the defense motions were held in abeyance pending further bankruptcy court proceedings. Id. The trustee moved to reopen the bankruptcy case, and to hire plaintiff’s lawyer to prosecute the class action on behalf of the estate. Id.

Continue reading "Class Action Defense Cases-Griffith v. Javitch: Ohio Court Holds Debtor’s Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Class Action Claim Belongs To Bankruptcy Trustee And Approves Settlement Of Individual Claim" »

Posted In: Certification of Class Actions, FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions

Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) does not Authorize Injunctive Relief Against Debt Collectors, FDCPA One-Year Statute of Limitations Begins to Run no later than Date Debt Collector Files Suit Against Debtor, and Debt Collector need only Establish that Notice Required by § 1692g was Sent, not Received, California Federal Court

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against debt collector and its attorneys in California state court for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and California’s equivalent statute known as the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (California’s FDCPA). Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court and moved to dismiss the California state-law claims arguing that they were barred by California’s litigation privilege; the district court agreed with the defense and dismissed those portions of the class action complaint. Taylor v. Quall, 471 F.Supp.2d 1053, 1056-57 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Defense attorneys then filed a motion to strike certain portions of the class action complaint, as well as a motion for summary judgment. Id., at 1055-56. The district court granted these motions in part, and granted the request of plaintiff’s lawyer for additional time to conduct discovery as to the FDCPA § 1692e claim in the class action complaint.

The class action arose from the following facts: a Plaintiff obtained a credit card from Citibank but stopped making payments on the card in early 2002. Citibank transferred the debt to defendant Unifund CCR Partners, and Unifund retained California attorney Matthew Quall to collect the debt. Taylor, at 1056. Quall sent plaintiff a collection letter in May 2005, and filed suit against plaintiff in June 2005; that lawsuit eventually settled, and Quall filed a request for dismissal without prejudice. Id. Plaintiff’s class action complaint was filed in July 2006 (mistakenly identified as 2005 in the court order), the claims of which the district court summarized at page 1056: “Plaintiff asserts that Quall (1) failed to provide the proper notice of debt required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g when he began his collection efforts; (2) made false or misleading representations while negotiating the settlement in violation of § 1692e; (3) failed to fulfill the FDCPA's standard for “meaningful” attorney involvement; and (4) violated the FDCPA by filing the Unifund Action without complying with California statutes governing suits brought on behalf of entities with fictitious business names.”

Continue reading "FDCPA Class Action Defense Cases-Taylor v. Quall: California Federal Court Partially Grants Defense Motions To Strike And For Summary Judgment In Class Action Alleging FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) Violations" »

Posted In: FDCPA Class Actions, Class Action Court Decisions